snark: a (well-deserved) attitude of mocking irreverence and sarcasm

April 27, 2019

I'm a Regence Medicare Advantage member, so have been following the dispute between Regence and Salem Health with considerable interest.

But if I wasn't aware of it before, a full page Regence ad in last Sunday's Statesman Journal (April 21) made the contract impasse difficult to miss. Heck, it was two-thirds the length of our dog!

The headline said, "Salem Health is asking for a bigger raise than you can afford." And down at the bottom, "Salem Health is demanding a double-digit increase that you can't afford."

Well, maybe.

Right now I'm not going to believe what Regence says, nor am I going to believe what Salem Health says. Choosing sides between a massive health insurance organization and a massive health care provider is a lot like being offered a choice between brussel sprouts and artichoke hearts.

I don't like either one.

But until the United States gets with the rest of the industrialized world and offers us citizens a cost-effective way to obtain health care without going through the maze of administrative bullshit that even Medicare is prone to (though Medicare is way better than private insurance), I'm going to have to keep on dealing with Regence and Salem Health.

On the whole, I'm siding with Regence in this dispute. Here's one reason why.

Last year I got a November 6, 2018 letter from Regence regarding my Medicare Advantage plan. It said that the contract between Regence and Salem Health would end on December 31, 2018. However, Regence went on to say:

"However, to help protect our Medicare Advantage members from high out-of-pocket costs, we have made the business decision to provide in-network benefit coverage through December 31, 2019. This means you should not experience any change in coverage if you receive care from the hospitals [Salem Health and Salem Health West Valley] through Dec. 31, 2019. Your in-network benefit will apply."

That was good news.

I appreciated that Regence sent out the letter well before the end of the annual open enrollment period, October 15 to December 7, during which I could have changed Medicare Advantage plans. I've been generally happy with Regence Medicare Advantage.

However, on December 21, 2018 Salem Health Hospitals & Clinics sent me a letter with a different message. After noting that Salem Health's contract with Regence for professional services (care provided by health care practitioners) expired on June 30, 2018, the letter said:

A separate contract with Regence continues to cover Salem Health's hospital facility bills through June 30, 2019. This means that our physician and other professional services are only covered under your out-of-network insurance benefit, while our hospital facilities will continue to be covered for in-network services until June 30, 2019.

Now it's hard for me to believe that Salem Health wasn't aware that Regence had told its Medicare Advantage members that Regence would bill at in-network rates for care provided by Salem Health hospitals through December 31, 2019. Thus it seemed that the December 21 letter from Salem Health was a scare tactic.

If so, it worked.

Shortly before an upcoming repeat colonoscopy on February 12, I got to thinking about how much more it would cost if I had to pay Salem Health for hospital care at out-of-network rates. Sure, Regence had told me I'd be paying at the in-network rate through the end of 2019. But the Salem Health letter said that the in-network rate would end June 30, 2019.

So I phoned Regence. A note I scribbled on the November 2018 letter from Regence says "Called 2/7/19. Was told this letter is correct. Salem Health was wrong."

I also was told by the Regence person I talked with that they'd gotten lots of calls about the discrepancy between what Regence said in its letter and what Salem Health said in its letter -- which, again, was wrong. Or at least, deeply misleading.

The way I understand the situation, it seems that while the contract between Regence and Salem Health for hospital services ends either on December 31, 2018 (according to Regence) or June 30, 2019 (according to Salem Health), in either case Regence has agreed to bill at the in-network rate until the end of 2019.

I have no idea why Salem Health chose to mislead Regence members.

Yes, the in-network contract was going to end, but Regence apparently was going to absorb the cost of the difference between in-network and out-of-network rates for all of 2019. So I and many other Regence Medicare Advantage members got needlessly worried when we got the December 21, 2018 letter from Salem Health.

This whole thing reminds me of the pissing match that's been going on between DirecTV and the Pac-12 Networks for more years than I can remember. DirecTV says the Pac-12 Networks is asking for too much money. The Pac-12 Networks says other TV providers have paid what they're asking, so why can't DirecTV?

In between sit DirecTV customers, like me, who couldn't care less about who's right and who's wrong. We just want to see our favorite Pac-12 teams on our television. And the last I looked, the subscriber cost being fought over is less than a dollar a month.

Regence leaders said the health system is seeking “double-digit” increases to current prices, which would be passed on to customers in the form of higher premiums.

Salem Health leaders have not disputed that figure, but said the move would bring Regence in line with what other commercial insurers pay.

...Neither side has been willing to publicly state the precise amount of the increase or what Regence currently pays for care. Regence has repeatedly claimed Salem Health is more expensive than Oregon hospitals of “similar size and quality.”

Parr said Salem Health has offered to have an independent accountant look at the hospitals rates for other commercial insurers to ensure Regence isn’t paying more. Regence has declined, calling it a “negotiation tactic to drive up the cost of care for our members,” spokesman Jared Ishkanian said.

Geez. I wish both the Regence and Salem Health negotiators would take a big dose of MDMA, a.k.a. Ecstasy, and swear endless love toward each other, then come up with a contract that's agreeable to both sides.

Not having taken Ecstasy, my mood as I write this blog post is considerably less positive toward both Regence and Salem Health.

Like I said above, it's irritating that Salem Health was willing to send out false/misleading information to Regence Medicare Advantage members about a shift to out-of-network hospital rates midway through 2019.

And it's been irritating to have Regence tell me that it's no big deal if I can't use Salem Hospital -- there's hospitals in Silverton and Tualatin that Regence has contracts with.

Hey, Regence: I live in Salem! If I need hospital care I don't want to go to an out-of-town hospital.

It puts the so-called Big Weed book removal effort on hold until the end of June, most likely. Here's how the leader of the Big Weed opposition, Jim Scheppke, put it in an email he sent out today.

Dear Library Supporters:

Last night the City Council voted not to resume the Big Weed for a couple months at least. I want to thank all of you who attended the meeting, who testified and who submitted written testimony. I think we made a good showing.

Councilor Hoy led the effort to continue to have the Council look at the issues surrounding the Collection Development Policy. Near the end of the meeting he made this motion:

"I move there will be no actual removal of adult non-fiction books for any reason other than condition until the Council reviews the May tracking report along with any recommendations of staff or the LAB.” [Library Advisory Board]

The “tracking report” refers to a report that the LAB has requested of all the books removed in May. According to the staff report “the report will include the percentage of items withdrawn for condition versus lack of use and provide examples that communicate full consideration of collection development decisions made by librarians for items withdrawn, retained and repaired.”

As I understand Councilor Hoy’s motion, adult non-fiction books won’t actually be withdrawn in May, but still may be tagged somehow for withdrawal in the future.

Later in the discussion Councilor How clarified his motion by saying this:

"We’re saying don’t actually discard the books while we are doing the work that the Library Advisory Board asked them to do. My goal would be to get detailed information on the factors that went into the decision to remove a book from the library so we have that next level of detail that we don’t have currently so we can make a thorough review of the policy and how it is being implemented.”

So what will happen next is the staff will do the “tracking” in May and report on that to the LAB in June. The LAB will then make a recommendation to Council about what should happen next.

The LAB seems totally committed to continuing the Big Weed so I am not optimistic that they will have a different recommendation for the Council in June. We will need to plan to go back to the Council when they take this up again. I am guessing that will be on June 24th, if you would like to mark your calendar.

Thanks to Councilor Chris Hoy for his leadership last night to put off resumption of the Big Weed for a least a couple of months. We hope he will continue to excercise leadership to reach a compromise that would bring together what he sees as the "two visions" for the future of the library.

One vision involves mass book removal, as was happening last fall, to create what library management and the Library Advisory Board see as a "dynamic" popular materials library.

Our vision is not the opposite of that, despite how it has been mischaracterized.

We want a dynamic popular materials library too, but we also want what is stated in the Collection Development Policy: "a broad choice of materials to meet informational, educational, cultural, and recreational needs." This cannot be achieved if the Big Weed resumes.

Why can't both "visions" be brought together? Maybe Councilor Hoy can work on that.

Salem City Council on Monday directed library staff to continue only removing adult non-fiction titles that are in poor condition, retaining the rest, until at least June. Library staff will start work on a new report in May showing how the staff decide to keep, mend or discard books.

The new report would then go before the citizen-led Library Advisory Board and back to Salem City Council.

...After the motion passed, Jim Scheppke, a former director of the State Library of Oregon and a vocal opponent of the review, told Salem Reporter the motion was a “partial victory” because the review remains paused.

Three members of the advisory board, however, said they did not understand why the issue is going back to the board. In February, the board voted unanimously to recommend staff resume the review.

“We already made a recommendation,” said Lois Stark, board member. “Now they’re asking us to make another recommendation and I don’t understand.”

Hmmmm. Likely I'll have more to say about Stark's comment in another post.

Briefly, the Library Advisory Board, like almost all volunteer boards, appears to have been captured by full-time staff. Meaning, the LAB isn't capable of thinking independently, because they're used to doing the bidding of library staff.

I realize this might sound overly critical, but it's how I see the situation.

The same thing tends to happen with the City Council, a volunteer "board" dependent on City of Salem staff. Staff typically want to keep on doing what they've been doing, because they're comfortable doing it.

Yet obviously there is much more general knowledge and expertise among the citizenry in our city of about 170,000, than there is in City of Salem staff.

So while it makes sense for volunteer boards to lean on staff for direction in many cases, the Library Advisory Board should keep an open mind when well-informed citizens present views that differ from those of staff.

OK, I wasn't all that brief. I do have more to say on this subject, though. Another time...

April 20, 2019

Back in November 2018 Jim Scheppke issued a battle cry to book lovers: the decimation of the Salem Public Library's print collection must be met with fierce resistance.

See here, here, and here for my blog post reports about the first stages of the war against Library Director Sarah Strahl's efforts to implement what later became known as the Big Weed.

Since, I've followed the exploits of Scheppke and his band of outraged library users with much admiration.

They've been both relentless and reasonable in their efforts to understand why Strahl and her compliant Library Advisory Board feel it's OK to markedly reduce the number of books -- which, according to Scheppke's seemingly solid research, already is quite a bit less than what a city of Salem's size should have in its library.

My impression is that Strahl and Co. have been unwilling to engage with critics of her book retention policies in any substantive manner. This seems decidedly at odds with how a supposedly fact-based librarian should operate.

Next Monday, April 22, the City Council will be discussing the library's Collection Development Policy, a more genteel term for the Big Weed.

No, wait... I misspoke.

Actually the City Council agenda item doesn't say there will be a discussion of the highly controversial Collection Development Policy. Instead, members of the City Council are supposed to be treated to an informational report of what's been going on.

Entirely appropriately, Scheppke is calling out Norm Wright, the Community Development Director who oversees the library, for Wright's attempt to sideline the City Council's legal responsibility to determine how the library operates.

Today Scheppke sent out this email:

Dear Library Supporters:

I thought you might be interested in my correspondence with the head of the Community Development Department (the City Librarian’s boss). He earlier indicated to me that the resumption of the Big Weed would serve as a recommendation to the Council. By making it an “information only” item on the Council agenda, he is not following through on that commitment.

Jim

Hey, of course us Library Supporters are interested in the correspondence.

On March 6, Scheppke wrote this to Wright:

Hi Norm:

I am sorry to hear that the motion passed by the LAB at their last meeting is being interpreted as sanctioning the resumption of the book removal project. In my opinion this is not consistent with the Salem Revised Code.

According to the Salem Revision Code the LAB can only make recommendations to Council on library policy matters. So when the LAB approved a motion to resume implementation of the Collection Development Policy, that must be interpreted as a recommendation to the Council according to SRC 18.050(a).

I believe proper course of action would be to take the recommendation of the LAB to the Council on April 8th for Council action to accept the recommendation or to do otherwise.

I hope you will reconsider this in light of my comments. I will be in town on April 8th and would look forward to speaking to the Council about this.

Thanks for sharing this information with me,

Jim

Also on March 6, Wright responded to Scheppke:

Sorry, I could have been more precise with my words. We are in agreement. The LAB motion was indeed to *recommend* resuming the implementation. I could have written that fully in my email instead of just writing "the LAB motion".

Council can certainly decide to accept it or provide a different policy direction. The report will be written for that very purpose.

Hope that helps.

But today Scheppke said this:

Norm: I am sorry to see in the Council agenda for Monday night that what you told me below is not what is happening. The LAB recommendation is “information only.” This is wrong. The LAB Bylaws are clear:

I hope you will see that this mistake is corrected and that the LAB recommendation is moved to Action Items, where it rightfully belongs.

Jim

Hopefully this will occur at next Monday's City Council meeting. It's ridiculous that City staff are trying to get away with making this an Informational Report agenda item.

There needs to be extensive discussion of what Scheppke learned about through public record requests made to the City of Salem: 3,334 books have been removed from the library so far, with many more to come if the Big Weed isn't stopped. A few days ago he emailed me this:

Brian:

Here is a list of 3,334 books that were removed from our library collection in the Big Weed, before it was suspended. I got this information in three separate public records requests.

The City Council will decide whether the Big Weed should be resumed or not next Monday night. The Library Advisory Board is recommending it be resumed. A number of us are going to testify. I am trying to get two former librarians who recently quit to testify, but they are still deciding. It’s not really in the nature of most librarians to do that (yes, the stereotype is mostly true).

The list I made shows the books that are recommended for any public library in the Wilson guide Public Library Core Collection: Nonfiction. There are quite a few of them. They are all gone now.

I think a lot of the books on the list were probably sold for $1.25 and less at the recent Friends book sale. If the Big Weed were to resume many, many thousands more would be removed, I’m sure. They were just getting started when the project was suspended.

You’ll see from the list that the poetry collection and the play collection got hit pretty hard. Philosophy too, though they did not have that much to begin with. Lots of books on atheism are gone.

Some of the books, but not many, were duplicates so there is still one on the shelf. You can’t assume these were the last copies, and many are owned by other libraries in CCRLS.

April 18, 2019

For a political junkie like me, today's non-stop coverage of William Barr's embarrassingly awful press conference and subsequent analysis of the redacted Mueller report has felt like taking a really long hot shower that leaves you both blissfully exhausted and pleasantly energized.

I've read the tweets. I've looked over Washington Post and New York Times stories. I've listened to much of what MSNBC had to offer, while fast forwarding through repetitive or uninteresting parts. I've scanned some of the report.

Here's what leaps out at me after the initial coverage of the lengthy Mueller report.

Barr should be impeached. Likely he won't be, but some smart political analysts have suggested this as a seemingly foolproof way for Democrats to get the unredacted Mueller report. It's clear that Attorney General Barr lied in his initial four-page letter about the Mueller report. He mischaracterized the report's findings and is now acting like Trump's personal attorney, rather than as the leader of a Justice Department that serves the American people, not the president.

Mainstream media has been vindicated. Despite Trump's inane claims of "fake news," virtually everything that's been reported about the Mueller investigation over the past few years turns out to have been true. This includes commentators who argued that collusion occurred between Russia and the Trump campaign, and that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. Both things happened.

Collusion, yes; conspiracy, no. Above is a screenshot from page 2 of the Mueller report. Trump and Barr have been (figuratively) screaming No collusion! However, Mueller made clear that collusion, or even coordination, don't have settled definitions in federal criminal law.

In the excerpt above, he strongly implies that the Trump campaign did engage in actions that "were informed by or reponsive to" actions and interests of Russians, along with WikiLeaks. There wasn't an agreement between the Russian government and the Trump campaign regarding election interference. But there was a heck of a lot of collusion between Russians and people associated with the campaign.

Russian interference in the election is undeniable. Page 1 of the report makes this clear, as shown above. The Russians favored trump and disparaged Clinton. Russia stole documents from the Clinton campaign, which then were released by WikiLeaks.

And there were numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Paul Manafort provided polling data to Russians relating to key midwest battleground states that Trump won with the aid of Russian disinformation efforts through social media.

Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. Mueller provides ten pieces of evidence relating to obstruction of justice. Yet he didn't issue an opinion on this part of the investigation. Instead, it's clear from the report that Mueller left it up to Congress to decide what to do on this front, since a sitting president can't be indicted on this charge (or maybe any charge).

So Barr lied when he claimed in his four-page report that Mueller's failure to say that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice had nothing to do with the fact that a president can't be indicted. Actually, that fact was the main reason Mueller left it up to Congress to decide how to handle the obstruction charges.

Trump encouraged people to lie. He repeatedly tried to get Mueller fired. He did fire Comey, the Attorney General at the time. There's compelling evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Fortunately, he didn't succeed, but not for lack of trying. The only question is how House Democrats should hold him accountable for this.

Impeachment seems more likely, though not inevitable. Until today I'd been thinking that impeachment was off the table for Democrats. However, the Mueller report contains so much damning information about Trump (much of it already known, but not clearly packaged), it's hard to see how Trump should be allowed to get off without further investigations of some sort.

If Congress doesn't serve as a check on how Trump has been abusing presidential power, future presidents will be tempted to further expand the boundaries of criminality and unethical behavior. Sure, politically impeachment may be a bad idea that would help Trump's re-election chances. But holding oversight hearings could be the next best thing.

Investigations are ongoing. Even a cursory review of the report shows numerous mentions of "Harm to Ongoing Matter," or HOM -- such as this section regarding the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks.

So while Trump may hope that the Mueller investigation is behind him, spinoff investigations continue. Plus, there are several other investigations by both federal and state authorities into possible wrongdoing by Trump and his companies. We're at the end of a beginning, but likely not at the beginning of the end.

Sleaze and bad behavior. All of the evidence in the Mueller report about sleazy, unethical, and generally bad behavior by Trump and his cronies would cause massive headlines in every newspaper if so much of this hadn't already been reported on. There's no doubt that the Trump presidency is deeply flawed, to put it mildly.

Ordinarily, the White House press secretary lying about staff in the Justice Department being pleased with Comey's firing would lead to a firing. Or at least an abject apology. But Sanders lies so often about everything, as do many others in the Trump administration, we've gotten used to this crap -- in line with the frog slowly boiling in water analogy.

Like a Mafia crime family, Trump has been able to get away with (non-literal) murder because his fingerprints aren't directly on the crime scene. And the Mueller report says that people associated with Trump were able to delete electronic evidence, or hide it on encrypted devices, which made it difficult to investigate certain areas.

Hopefully the Democratic leadership in Congress will be able to find a way to do the right thing for our country, while also doing the right thing for the Democrat 2020 nominee to beat Trump. Impeachment may not be the best option, but doing nothing about the deeply disturbing Mueller report findings also isn't an option.

April 16, 2019

Students should be able to learn without anti-abortion zealots interfering with their education. But that's the plan of Oregon Right to Life: take control of the Salem-Keizer school board in the May 21, 2019 election.

Three of the seven current school board members are backed by Oregon Right to Life: Kathy Goss, Jesse Lippold, and Marty Heyen. The photo above was in a 2017 blog post where Oregon Right to Life bragged about the election of Goss and Lippold, saying:

Pro-life voices on school boards are important for several reasons. Not only do school board members affect education policy, they become community leaders with influence beyond their offices. Most importantly, their efforts keep Planned Parenthood away from our children.

Now Oregon Right to Life is supporting the re-election of Heyen and the election of two other candidates: Danielle Bethell and Satya Chandragiri. If all three were elected, Oregon Right to Life would have a 5-2 majority on the school board.

UPDATE: someone emailed me a mailing Oregon Right to Life sent prior to the 2017 Salem-Keizer school board election that says "A Critical Election for the Unborn." Here's a PDF file. Scroll to the end of this post to see images of the mailing. It's nasty. There's an absurd claim that Planned Parenthood has a financial interest in pushing students to use their abortion services -- which only are about 3% of the services they provide nationwide.Download Right to Life mailing in 2017

Campaign finance reports show that Heyen, Bethell, and Chandragiri each have gotten $2666.66 from the Oregon Right to Life PAC via in-kind contributions.

It strikes me as strange that this exact number was contributed to the three Right to Life candidates, since 666 is viewed as the "mark of the beast" to some Christians, being a symbol of something flawed or God's enemies.

Well, hopefully voters will see Heyen, Bethell, and Chandragiri as the flawed candidates.

They didn't mention Oregon Right to Life in the candidate statements published by the Statesman Journal. So they're trying to run stealth right-to-life campaigns. (See here, here, and here.)

Likely this is because they know that Oregonians favor sex education in schools and support the women's health services provided by Planned Parenthood.

There are much better choices: Raul Marquez, David Salinas, and Chuck Lee.

UPDATE: Here's images of the above-mentioned mailing Oregon Right to Life sent to voters prior to the 2017 Salem-Keizer school board election.

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea.

[Note: proposed amendments to HB 2974 add Benton County to the counties comprising the bridge district, remove the ODOT representative, and sunset the district in 2024 if a bridge district hasn't been formed by then.]

On the Rep. Evans Bridge District idea, one item especially in the analysis might give us pause. It seems to suggest that it's not at all out of the question that the District might try to site a bridge in Salem again.

It had seemed like the District was an attempt to gather support for something more like a bridge at Wheatland Ferry.But this note makes it look more like it might be a bad-faith end-run around City Council's decision on the SRC.

Between the problems of property tax compression, the fact that any new bridge will induce traffic and add to greenhouse gas emissions, and adding another layer of regional government or governmental entity - all these together suggest the Bridge District idea should be approached very cautiously and critically.

I've heard that Rep. Evans didn't like that some opponents of HB 2974 were worried that this was a backdoor way to get around the Salem City Council's decision to kill the Salem River Crossing project.

But I agree with the Breakfast on Bikes blogger: it sure looks like a Third Bridge at the same location as that project proposed could be brought back to life by the Special Bridge District.

Hopefully HB 2974 won't move forward in the Oregon legislature. Most of those who testified at HB 2974's first, and so far only, hearing were opposed to the bill according to a Salem Reporter story. Excerpt:

The prospect of a new governing body empowered to build bridges drew more opposition than support at a public hearing on Monday.

House Bill 2974 would allow voters in Marion, Polk, Yamhill and Benton counties to create a special district to oversee bridge planning, maintenance and funding. Board members would be elected and any taxes would go before voters.

During an hour-long public hearing at the House Rules Committee, witnesses mostly opposed the idea over economic, environmental and logistical concerns.

Sid Friedman, a Yamhill County resident, said the district would only offer one solution when more are needed.

“We do have transportation issues, I think we all recognize that, but this bridge district would only be looking at one solution — a new bridge, or bridges — instead of taking a more comprehensive look and saying ‘Here’s what we truly need to address our transportation issues,’” he said.

Bob Cortright, a West Salem resident, said the proposal would add another transportation body to an area with no shortage of governing bodies, like the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation.

But Donald Trump is in a league of his own. And that's not a compliment. He's the only president who has refused to abide by norms of generally decent behavior that have allowed our country to remain a vibrant democracy through good times and bad.

After this week's events, my brain has jumped from possibility mode to holy shit we're in deep trouble mode.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope our national institutions -- Congress, courts, public opinion, elections -- are up to the job of keeping Trump from becoming the dictator president he clearly wants to be.

At the moment things don't look very encouraging, though. Let's count some of the reasons I feel this way.

(1) Most Republicans are willing to let Trump do whatever the hell he wants. His Gallup approval rating has jumped six points to 45% recently. Trump's approval among Republicans is 89%, among Democrats 8%, among Independents 39%. But Trump only considers himself president of his base, not the whole country. So he feels entitled and emboldened.

(2) William Barr, his Attorney General, seems determined to be Trump's personal lawyer rather than an impartial dispenser of justice. He unilaterally determined that Trump didn't obstruct justice after Mueller said evidence of this was equivocal. This week Barr claimed that the Trump campaign was "spied" on even though there's no evidence of this. A hit job on people considers to be his enemies seems to be Barr's goal. And Barr is doing his best to keep the Mueller report as hidden as possible.

(3) Trump wanted Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, to close the border with Mexico, even though Nielsen told him this would be illegal. Nielsen then resigned. Now Trump is putting his cronies in charge of immigration policies. Rather than being embarrassed by reporting that a plan to move migrant detainees to sanctuary cities had been considered, but rejected, Trump now is saying he is seriously considering doing this -- an atrocious and likely also illegal move.

(4) The Mueller investigation was treasonous, according to Trump. He's used that term 26 times. Greg Sargent writes, "Because Trump knows the seriousness of the charge, he therefore must be interpreting treason the way King Henry VIII did, in the lèse-majesté sense: Treason is anything that offends the dignity of the sovereign. Disagreement with Trump is an offense against the state, just as Henry executed unfaithful wives for treason."

(5) Trump reportedly offered to pardon the acting Homeland Security director if he violated the law and was arrested for blocking entry into the U.S. along the border with Mexico. That's obstruction of justice, but since his Attorney General believes it is impossible for a president to obstruct justice, Trump feels free to indulge his dictatorial tendencies.

Maybe this is a low point for American democracy and an upswing is coming. If so, it can't come soon enough for me. We can't wait for the 2020 election to make things right.

And I've got to say that while until now I've scoffed at Bill Maher's contention that if Trump loses the election he won't leave office willingly, that possibility is starting to seem a lot more likely to me.

April 08, 2019

Thanks, Jim Scheppke, for sharing on Scribd an Our Salem: Today presentation by the City of Salem that was discussed on April 3 at a meeting of committees charged with advising staff on revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.

OK, that sentence probably doesn't make your heart race with excitement. But if you click on the continuation to this post, you'll be able to pursue a bunch of facts about Salem that really are quite interesting.

For example, in the not-so-fun-fact category, Salem sucks when it comes to bicycling.

The miniscule blue bar in Salem's column shows that, compared to Eugene and other cities, very few people are riding bikes here. Which almost certainly is because the City of Salem has put very little effort into making cycling easy and safe to do.

On the positive side, the presentation included the first results of a Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

As shown above, Salem has considerably higher emissions per capita than Eugene, likely because our transportation system is so car-centric. Eugene has a much better bus system and bike paths.That theory is supported by this chart, which shows Salem's reliance on automobiles leads to much greater per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector than Eugene enjoys.

So the next step the Salem City Council needs to take is creation of a Climate Action Plan that lays out concrete steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.